Application of Petroleum Geophysical Well Logging and Sampling Techniques for Evaluating Aquifer Characteristics by Tom J. Temples and Mike G. Waddell” Abstract ‘The Hilton Head Island Test Well 1 was drilled to a depth of 3833 feet to evaluate the upper Cretaceous section as a potential ground-water source for Hilton Head Island, South Carolina. The initial plan was to analyze continuous conventional cores. The interval to be analyzed extended from the top of the Eocene to the base of the Cretaceous (approximately 3500 feet). However, dueto the high cost ($400,000), the decision was made to evaluate aquifer potential using advanced geophysical logs with sidewall cores for calibration. ‘The logging suite consisted of a dual induction resistivity, spontaneous potential, compensated neutron, density log, gamma ray, spectral garuma, multipole array acoustic log, caliper, high resolution dipmeter, and a circumferential borehole imaging log. In addition to the wireline logs, 239 sidewall cores and 12 Formation Multi-Test samples were obtained. ‘The log, sidewall core, and FMT information were integrated into an interpretive package using computer generated logs and simple spreadsheets to calculate aquifer properties. Porosity, hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, and lithologic data derived from this integrated analysis were then used to select screen zones. Water quality in relation to drinking water standards exceeded expectations. The information obtained from the integrated program allowed estimates to be made about the wells productivity ‘without the expense of conventional coring, flow testing, and completion of the well. Introduction Intense pressure on the shallow Floridan aquifer (Tertiary) system has been driven by rapid development on Hilton Head Island. To satisfy current furure demand, a new source of drinking water is needed. During the summer of 1992, the Town of Hilton Head, South Carolina decided to drill a wel to test the feasibility of using the Upper Cretaceous as a source of drinking water (Figure 1) A test well (BFT-2055) was drilled toa depth of 3833 feet (Figure 2) to test these deeper formations ‘The accepted method of drilling a test water wellin the arca consists of conventionally coring the entre interval. The core is then plugged or sieved and tested for permeability, porosity, ete., to select the potential sereen intervals. Due to the excessive ‘Earth Science and Resource Institute, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208, (Temples present address js: United States Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations fee, Aiken, South Carolina 29802.) Received November 1994, revised May and June 1995, accepted Suly 1995 Vol. 34, No, 3~GROUND WATER—-May'June 1996 costs associated with coring a 3400 foot well, an alternative approach was needed. Although geophysical logs (Keys, 1989) have been used in the water well industry for years, the level of sophistication is ‘usually not as high as that associated with the petroleum indus- tty. A decision was made to use advanced wireline logging methods typically associated with the petroleum industry. It ‘was postulated that these logs ould provide the information necessary to evaluate the potential of the well for municipal water supply. After the logs were run, the data were sent to the wireline company’s computing center for further analysis. ‘These analyses consisted of evaluations for clay type, shaley sand evaluation, thin bed analysis, and litho-elastic properties. Stratigraphy The sedimentary trata underlying Hilton Head Island con- tain rocks ranging in age from Cretaceous to Recent (Figure 1), Ingeneral, the section consists of Cretaceous age sands and clays beginning at 2080 feet. The Cretaceous section is overlain by the ‘Ocala and the Santee Limestone ofthe Tertiary limestone aqui- fersystem. This aquifer system isthe primary source of water for the island. Oligocene to Pleistocene/ Recent sediments are pres- ent from 125 fet to the surface. 3BPUOaLEBYOSENE | _UNDRFERENTIATED CTs 3 | senmavacun [aaa] HAWTHORN Fa 3 3 eee * z 45 fo a y [panonan PARKERS FERRY NO 8 ea & | wrenay | 288 | sawree umestone encom | SHURE | rwwveran | Eg | weumusoune rm Z | om | 2 as | mestmecu pesoes Fu, §r-— ? | canemman | 8 | ouac onsen si © [santonan | = 5 | comaran MoOEKOORF Ft TURONAN oe PEONONT SoMMLEX Fig. 1, Stratigraphic column forthe area caumoue SOUND, “ATLANTIC OCEAN Fig. 2. Location of the Hilton Head Island Test Well #1. 54 The PeeDee, Black Creek, Middendorf, and Cape Fear formations have been referred to as the Cretaceous aquifer system, Colquhoun etal (1983) deserbes the subdivision of the Cretaceous aguifer system into the PeeDee, Black Creek (Spigner and Ransom, 1979), and Midéendost aquifer systems The Middendorf and Cape Fear were described as the Principal Tuscaloosa aquifer by Park (1980). In the Hilton Head wel, the eeDee and Black Creek aquiter system (rom 1680 40 2775 fet) are composed of dark gray to black clays and silts with low permeabilities and are an aquiclude in this area. The first Cretaceous aquifer sand with high resistivity occurs within the Middendorf Formation at 2780 feet. The major zones of interest, in the Cretaceous occurred below this dept inthe sands of the Middendorf and Cape Fear formations Previous Work Te majority of work done with geophysical logs has been insupport ofthe oindustr. Virtually all ofthe advancements in logging tools have been driven by the needs within this industry. Geophysical logging in the ground-water industry was ist com- prehensively described by Jones and Skibitzke (1956). Keys and MacCary (1971) described the dorainant logs in use in the 1970s This document was later updated by Keys in 1989 with emphasis on the newer tools not described in the earlier work. The logs most widely used in the ground-water industry consist of the spontaneous potential, resistivity, gamma, gamma spectrome- try, gamma-gamma, neutron, acoustic, televiewer, caliper, and temperature Until recently litle work has been done, or published in the ground-water industry with the more sophisticated tools that are routinely used by the petroleum industry. Thayer (1983) used geophysical logs to evaluate the porosity and permeability ofthe Madison Formation of Montana, MacCary (1984) demon- strated tha resistivity logs can be used to determine the apparent ‘water resistivity of the units inthe Madison Formation. Turean (1966) used geophysical logs to make estimates of water quality in Lousiana aquifers. Robson and Banta (1993) analyzed cores, aquifer tests, and geophysical logs to evaluate bedrock aquifers ‘ear Castle Pines, Colorado. Logs Run Upon completion of drilling in the Hilton Head Test Well #1, a geophysical logging suite was run similar to those in a typical petroleum exploration well. The logs consisted of series of dual phase induction resistivity (shallow-RSFL, medium-RIPM, and deep-RIPD resistivity) logs, spontaneous potential (SP), compensated neutron, density log gamma ray, spectral gamma ray, multipole array acoustilog (MAC), caliper, high resolution dipmeter, and a circumferential borehole imag- ing log (CBIL). All logs were run from 290 feet to the total depth ‘Table 1. Drilling Fluid Properties Bottom hole temperature TEE Rm @ 80°F 698 Rif @ 80°F 539 Rme @ 80° 838, Rm at BHT 5.060 Fluid density 5.5 Ib eal Fluid viscosity 45Table 2. Sidewall Core Depths, Measured Core Porosity and Permeability, and Porosity Calculated Off the Logs Core Core depth Permeability porosity Log porosity (Geet) (mb) i i) 2810 ‘000 2 2882 4500 3s 2916 4000 2 2930, 3800 2 3186 200 2 3250 ne a 3370 3500 0 3390 8S » 3aa8 53 2» 3476 4000 | 3 3536 3500 2 am 3500 3 3194 5 5 2304 1150 a 2912 1310 25 2084 338 2 014 4u0 2» 3064 440 3 3094 392 3 3210 1290 31 3240 115 38 3380 1120 0 Baad 2320 » 3am 270 31 3552 1280 35 3584 2100 3 3664 2840, 31 3684 1070 3 wm 31 (mD = millidareies, na of the well (3833 feet) except the CBIL which was run from 259S-TD. Each log was selected to aid in the evaluation of the formations present with regard to porosity, lithology, perme- ability, and fluid content A series of computer generated logs gave information about the clay type, presence of thin laminations, and other petrophysical properties of the formations. The clay analysis, yielded information about the clay content of the formation, the ‘types of clay present, the amount of clay, and whether the clay is ‘Table 3. FMT Depths, Initial Shut-In Pressures, ‘and Head Relative to Sen Level ‘nial Head rel SIP land __ os) Geet) 48 8 0 318 si7 434 64 45 785 485 163 +151 1329 +1) 13a +195 1443 +169 161 20 542 +184 1686 +168 laminated or dispersed. Litho-lastic analysis yielded informa- tion on Young’: modulus, bulk modulus, shear modulus, Poisson's ratio, and the bulk compressibility Cores and Formation Tests ‘Although most logging tools are calibrated to some known standard, itis still necessary to tie the log derived information to some actual measured property particularly in a new area. To supplement and calibrate the logs, 239 percussion sidewall cores were gathered and analyzed to establish a baseline forthe area. These were used for paleontological information, porosity/per- ‘meability measurements, and lithotogic descriptions. Labora- tory tests for porosity, permeability, and sorting were performed ‘on 40 of the sidewall cores, and 19 cores were described for lithology and sieved. Table 2 displays the cores taken in the Cretaceous zones of interest. The remainder of the cores were taken inthe clays to determine their effectiveness as an aquitard, for fuid studies or for microbial research. ‘Twelve zones were selected for fluid sampling using the Formation Multi-Tester and an additional 35 zones were mea- sured for formation pressures. Valid pressure readings were obtained from 21 ofthe 35 zones (Table 3) which were converted to hydraulic head values relative to land surface. Pressure buildup/time readings were attempted at seven depths. These tests yielded inconclusive results due to the high permeabilities present in relation to permeabilities normally ‘encountered by this tool, In the future, the RFT should be calibrated to account for the higher permeabilities. With this adjustment, information can be obtained from the buildup curve that will allow a measured permeability to be obtained that can supplement the core data. Cost Comparison One of the driving factors in choosing a method of investi- gation is the cost, In the case of the Hilton Head well, the «estimate to conventionally core that well was over $450,000. The original estimates forthe selected logging program were less than ‘$60,000. However, due to hole problems and logistical delays, ‘that final cost came to $157,000. Since this was the first attempt ‘to use these types of logs in the area, alot of problems cropped up that were not anticipated. On future jobs, actual logging costs should be more in line with the estimates. Log Calculation Equations Numerous methods exist to calculate porosity from geo- physical logs. These methods utilize the sonic log, density log, and the neutron log. All ofthese logs measure some property of the rock that can be related to porosity. In sedimentary rocks the velocity that sound travels through the rock isa function of the matrix material and the porosity of the formation. Increasing porosity increases the travel time of the sound wave through the rock. With this in ‘ind, porosity can be determined by measuring the sonic veloc- ity ofa formation and comparing it to a dense rock ofthe same lithology, The Wyilic Time-Average Equation (Wyllie et al., 1958) is used to calculate porosity from the sonic log. The formula is: 1100 — tos oa tenis o va ‘where trea is the value from the sonic log in s/f, ta is the 925cum tay cars vee root fone Fig. 3. Section of the computer generated log dis transit time ofthe matrix materia, and tris the transit time ofthe ‘uid in the pores (approximately 189 us/ft for fresh water. ‘This equation yields values in uncompacted sands that are too high and must be corrected (Schlumberger, 1989). Anempiri- cal correction factor may be obtained by dividing the calculated ‘measured velocity in a nearby lay by 100, or by comparing the porosity obtained from the equation with that measured from another source such as a core (Schlumberger, 1989). This can then be used to calculate a correction factor forthe log values. P and s wave velocities along with bulk density ae needed to caleulate the bulk modulus. Tis value can then be used for @ variety ofltho-lastc properties such as Young’s modulus, shear ‘modulus, and Poisson's ratio (Figure 3). By taking the density of a rock with zer0 percent porosity 526 io! jing the p and s wave velocities and the calculated litho-elastic properties, ‘and comparingit to the values from the density log, the porosity ccan be determined with the following equation: Pas Q Pm ~ Br where pm = density of the matrix, ps = bulk density from the Jog, and p;= density ofthe luid in the formation (Schlumberger, 1989), ‘The neutron log is also used to measure porosity. In clean formations filled with water this log represents the water filled ppore spaces. ‘The presence of clays in the formation will either cause the density values to be higher or lower depending upon the mineral-ogy and degree of compaction of the clays. A sandstone matrix ‘was used to derive porosity values from the density and neutron Togs. In the case ofthe density log, the value used was 2.65 gjce (sandstone) to derive porosity values, Grain density valuesin the sidewall cores ranged from 2.61 g|ccto2.67 gjce withthe average being 2.65 gice. ‘The generally accepted method of deriving porosity values is by cross plotting the density log with the neutron log. This usually correts for lithology effects such as clay content and gives a value that is close, if not equal to, the effective porosity value derived from core analysis. Coss plot values can be read from achart(Atas Wireline Services, 1985; Schlumberger, 1989) orealcuated from an equation. The followingequation was used in the spreadsheet to calelate effective porosity (pers. com- ‘munication with Atlas Wireline). D&+ND | (DB + NO)? 2 z elf 8 where D& = the density porosity derived from the log, and 1Né = the neutron porosity derived from the log. ‘Table 2 shows the values calculated from the logs and those values measured from the cores. The values are in agreement with the readings obtained from the logs (Figure 4). Other methods exist 0 obtain porosity values from geo- physical logs. These methods involve eross plotting the data ‘Obtained from other tools such as the sonic (Asquith, 1982; Schlumberger, 1989). The sonic log responds to secondary poros- ity differently from the density and neutron porosity logs. This response stems from the fact that sound will take the quickest path, which isnot through the vugs or fractures. Porosity tools such as the density or neutron measure whole rock properties, taking into account the fractures and vugs. Therefore to deter- ‘mine if secondary porosity exists, the sonic derived porosity is compared with another porosity tool. If the sonic porosity is lower than the other log, the difference is the amount due to secondary porosity (Asquith, 1982) Fig. 4. Seetion of the lthodensity and neutron log over a zone of interest. sarFig. 5. Section of resistivity log illustrating the separation of the curves in a porous and permeable zone in comparison toa tight zone. Permeability Permeability is one of the most difficult parameters to derive from logs. In many instances a relationship exists between porosity and permeability. This holds true for most formations ‘that have high permeability values, Numerous equations exist to derive permeability values from geophysical logs (Tixier, 1949; Morris and Briggs, 1967; Timur, 1968; and Coates and Dumanoir, 1973), All ofthese methods, however, require the knowledge of the irreducible water saturation and assume that moveable ol is flushed out during drilling and that there are some residual hydrocarbons present. ‘The Hilton Head well is one of the first wells to be drilled recently to this depth for the purpose of water supply investiga- tion. Unlike the Gulf Coast and Mid-Continent where extensive data on irreducible water saturation values have been deter- mined, there is no data base in existence to draw on for this well. ‘Also, there were no hydrocarbons present. Several attempts 58 ‘were made using published equations (Timur, 1968; Tixier, 1949; Mortis and Briggs, 1967; and Coates and Dumanior, 1973) to find the appropriate method to estimate permeability from the logs, However, none of the equations yielded satisfactory results ‘Another method was needed to estimate permeability. The technique used developed a sable relationship between porosity ‘and permeability by plotting the core derived porosity with core derived permeability Archie, 1950; Bredchoeh, 1964). Using the cores from Table 2 with permeabilities in excess of 1000 mD, an cauation was generated that allowed permeability to be est- mated from the porosity, Only the cores taken in clean sands (permeabilities greater than 1000 mD) were used to reduce the scatter induced by the presence of clay. The cross plot of the porosity and permeability (Figure 6) derived from the cores yielded the following equation: y= 30.713 - 10%" “Table 4. Spreadsheet Values from Selected Intervals Hyde ‘Bulk Top Bot New Den Bf Perm cond T modulys Stor sand sand > = & mD fild frid tblin’ coeff W506 2612 38 MM 337 1624 97 140EWS 451E0G 2822 2840 3432-33337 15.58 280 1.60Er06 1.28608 2854 2858 38 31 M3365 19.5178 1.00E06 3.57EOG 2864 2672 33 32 -H_RIS 19ST 156 1.20E06 6.3906 2876 2884 35 35 35 3362 15.56 125 140E+06 6195-05 2904 2920 3133-32 4469 2069 331 LTOErOG 1.09E0S 2928 2944 33. 30 312919 1351 216 1.60EH06 1.10E0S 2952 2960 27 21 24 2723 1260 101 1.90EH6 4.41E-06 2978 2993 32 31 32979 4.53 6& 1.60Er06 1.04805 2998 3017 31 28 30 2814 1303 248 L40EN6 1.33E0S 3045 3054 36 33, 34 29 9.48 76 L.29EHOS 6 55E-06 3060 3068 35 31 334172 19.31 154 140EH06 5.98506 MOTI 3082 35 30 32 3377 1563 172 1.605006 7.73506 3090 3108 35 30 32 3153 1459 263 L40EH6 134E0S 3146 3198 3531 33-G2TIIS.14 787 1.60EH6 3 70E0S 3208 3226 32 30 31 3803 16.22 292 3.30E06 9.81.06 3358 3386 30 30 30 2623 12:14 340 1.70EH06 184E0S 3436 3448 30, 27 28 2274 1052 126 180E6 7.46506 3466 34843130, 311840852 153 L70EW6 L19E0S 3506 3516 28 23. 26 2441 11.30 113 1.90EW6 574-06 3548 3560 3831351252 S180 70 L8DEN6 8435.06 3578 3588 35 29 334360 20.18 202 L8DEM6 6.72506 3612 3638 32 31 32 3162 14.64 381 190E+06 1696-05 3660 3666 32 29 31 2814 1303 78 1.80E106 3895.06 3678 3688 33° 30 31 2445.11.32 113 (.70EV06 6.73E06 3110 3718 36 25 31 2723.12.60 101 180EH6 522-06 3726 3737 33. 27 312855 11.83. 130 L80E6 7.11506 3740 3748 35 30. 332381 102 8B L.ADEW6 58306 where y = permeability in millidarcys, and ~ the porosity value in percent from the eross plot of the density and neutron logs. The data used to generate the equation had a correlation coefficient (r}) of 0.872. Porosity values from the logs were inserted into the equation in zones of interest to estimate the permeability where core data were not available (Table 4), perm md 20 30 40 por % Fig. 6. Plot of core porosity versus core permeability with best-fitline. Once the permeability of the formation is known, the hydraulic conductivity (K) can be calculated. To convert intrinsic ‘permeability derived from the logs to hydraulic conductivity, the following equation (Bear, 1979) was used (Table 4) 6 where 41 is the dynamic viscosity of the fluid at formation temperature, p is the density of the fluid at formation tempera- ture, and kis the permeability derived from the logs or core data. Values were calculated in cm/sec at 115 degrees F, the aquifer temperature In an artesian aquifer, another important parameter is the storage coefficient (S). Lohman (1972) expressed an equation by Jacob (1940) as: wax(heS) o wre = por decal tion, ~ apse ih per unit area (0.434 LB in? f'), thickness in feet, Ey = bulk ‘modulus of elasticity of water (3 X 10° LB in) at ordinary copes C= divanonleara ult moduls ete rock forming the aquifer in LByin’. C is a dimensionless ratio thot bone h comened praular mat and in omen sas such ato lions C equal tthe port {atmmton be undoes To © as Ty Seep eee ema Thc bolkmodulrcan cae xngnoombinaiont tne deni og esha slay, and he compresinal vee ery peep ieon pene ox [Cee SS asx 10% Where p isthe bulk density of the formation, Ats~ shear velocity of the formation, and Ate = compressional velocity of the forma- tion, All ofthese values can be read from the logs (Figures 3 and 4), This is input into equation (6) Interpretation of Data Interpretation of geophysical logs requires some basic knowledge ofthe rocks being examined. Initially the basic ithol- ‘ogy is determined from the gamma ray or SP login combination ‘with sample descriptions and sidewall cores. Intervals are exam- ined for porosity and permeability. A quick method for deter- mining permeable zones involves using the resistivity and/or the caliper logs to locate intervals of mud cake buildup. Thisis often an indication of permeability. Ifa zone is porous and permeable enough to allow invasion of th filtrate into the formation, a mud cake will develop along the well bore. This buildup will be reflected in the caliper logs as a decrease in hole size. The RSFL log is a shallow focus tool that measures the ‘resistivity of the mud in the invaded zone, If mud filtrate has invaded the zone and the resistivity of the mud filtrate (Rm) is ‘greater than the resistivity of the formation waters, the RSFL log, will have a higher reading than the deeper reading tools (RIPM and RIPD). Figure 5 illustrates the permeable zones by the separation of the resistivity curves compared to the tight zone ‘below on the logs. This technique can be used as a first pass to 579determine which zones warrant further investigation, either through additional log analysis or through sidewall cores, Since permeability is a function of porosity and is easier to measure inthe field, a minimum porosity should be established below which a zone is considered nonproductive. At Hilton Head this was determined to be 25. The density, neutron, and sonic logs are analyzed for zones that mect the established porosity cutofl. Zones meeting this eriteria are selected for further evaluation, Intervals meeting the eriteria were selected from the geo- physical logs (Figures 4 and 5), The data were then read into a spreadsheet incorporating the previously mentioned equations and calculations were performed. Values input into the spread= sheet were top of sand, bottom of sand, density porosity, neutron porosity, compressional velocity (p-wave), and shear velocity (s-wave). Values were calculated by the spreadsheet for effective porosity, permeability, hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, bulk modulus, and storage coefficient using the described equa- tions (Table 4). Results of the calculations determined that there was approximately 381 feet of aquifer sands in the Cretaccous between 2770 feet and 3763 feet. Of this, 253 feet were deter- ‘mined based on the spreadsheet output to be permeable, the best 200 feet were selected for potential sereen zones (Table 4), Water Quality Measurements, ‘Water samples gathered through the use of the FMT allow ‘additional information to be obtained via the wireline. The FMT ‘gathers a sample through the use of @ hydraulic port pushed into ‘the formation and seated against the well bore by a packer system. The tool is then opened and formation fluid lows into a sample chamber. There are two chambers in the tool, a6 gallon chamber and a 2.6 gallon chamber, To gather a sample with the least amount of contamination, the large chamber was opened first to flush the formation, and then the smaller chamber was ‘opened to gather the actual sample. Upon collection of a sample the tool was lifted to the surface via a wireline and the samaple extracted and bottled. Seven zones yielded fluid that was analyzed, five for water {quality and two others for microbial studies (Table 5). Samples collected atthe well site with the FMT were analyzed for temper- ature, pH, specific conductance, and dissolved oxygen. The ‘samples were then shipped tothe laboratory for further analysis. At the lab, the samples were analyzed for total dissolved solids, fluoride, chlorides, sulfates, silica, sodium, iron, calcium, mag- nesium, barium, and aluminum, Table 5 shows the cations and anions of significance. The sample from 3634 feet was analyzed for a complete list of organic and inorganic constituents as ‘Table S. Selected Laboratory Analyses from the FMT Samples ‘Depth ft Speon pH Fl Cl SO, SiO; Na Fe Ca 21190 «74 «40 10 OO 1988 24 130-80 «63-0 O32 340 24S 3164 N/A 62 35 1600 46 20 1000 0.59 IS 3B N/A N/A 58 470 $9 25 630 1384 36M 400-80 7.7260 120 ~NIA 400-1878 ‘ates ama sep Tor spec eondane and pH) 530 required by South Carolina State Drinking Water Regulations (R.61-58). None were detected. One sample (3378 feet) was tested for gross alpha, gross beta, tritium, radon-222, radium- 228, and radium-226 at the request of the state. No radionuclides were present in the sample (Atlanta Testing & Engineering Report 92-1001), Since the FMT takes samples from discrete depth, the values obtained may be biased in relation to the aquifer in ‘general. Also since the amount of “developments limited, mud contamination could be present and the sample may not be representative of the formation fluids. Thiscan be determined by analyzing a sample of drilling fuid for comparison. However, there was no evidence of this being the case in this well. The values for Rov were comparable (1,00 vs 0.870 ohms at depth 2879 fee), The water quality values obtained from the FMT yielded sufficient data to determine the suitability ofthe deep Cretaceous as a drinking water source with proper treatment ‘The dipmeter log provided information to aid ininterpreta- tion of the sedimentary properties and depositional environ- ments. When combined with the CIBL a very accurate image of the borehole can be achieved. Fractures, faults, and other struc- tural features can be determined as well as with core data. In areas where fractures contribute greatly to water production, these logs can be of significant vale. Inthe Hilton Head Well #t this information was used to assist in the determination of the «positional environments Conelusions The use of petroleum geophysical logging techniques is a cost efficient method of evaluating aquifer potential. Data cok lected can be entered into a spreadsheet 10 estimate porosity, permeability, hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, and storage coefficient, Until a sufficient database can be generated in the area it would be prudent to take sidewall cores to confirm the relation- ship of porosity to permeability for a particular well or area. As more core data are gathered and analyzed in this fashion an ‘equation or series of equations can be established that are appli= cable to # large area, ‘These properties can then be used to select sereen zones int short period of time without the necessity and expense of con- ventional coring, The selection of the screen zones in the Hilton Head Well #1 were made using the geophysical logs, The deter- rmination of a storage coefficient from the logs eliminates the need for performing a pump test requiring an observation wel. Integration of the data into an interpretive package pro- vides the geologist orengincer with the necessary information to make key decisions about a well in the field. This approach not only saves money in the drilling phase, but can save money inthe completion phase, by allowing the selection of the screen zones in the field Acknowledgments, "The authors would tike to express their thanks to Atlas Wireline for their assistance in the preparation of this paper along with B. C. Spigner of Atlanta Testing and Engineering, ‘This work was performed in part under a Cooperative Agree- ‘ment between the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources-Water Resources Division and the U.S. Department of Energy,References ‘Archie, G. E. 1950. Introduetion to petrophysies of reservoir rocks, ‘AAPG Bulletin v.34, pp. 43-961 ‘Asquith, G. B. with C. R. Gibson. 1982. Basic Well Log Analysis for Geologist. APG Methods in Exploration Series, The American Asioc, of Petroleum Geologists, OK. 216 pp. Alanta Testing and Engineering. 1992. Phase | Report Cretaceous ‘Auifer Test Well Hilton Head, South Carolina. Report 92-1001 Alas Wireline Services. 1985. Log Interpretation Charts, Western Alas International, Houston, 203 pp. Bear, J. 1979, Hydraulics of Groundwater, McGraw-Hil, New York. 569 pp. Bredehoett, J. D. 1964, Variation of permeability in the Tensleep Sandstone in the Bighorn Basin, Wyoming, as interpreted from ‘core analyses and geophysical logs. US. Geological Survey Profesional Paper S01-D. pp. DI66-DI70 Colquhoun, D. J, 1. D. Woolen, D. S. Van Nieuwenhuise, G. G. Padgett, R. W. Oldham, D.C, Boylan, J. W. Bishop, and P. D. Howell, 1983. Surface and subsurface stratigraphy, structure, and aquifers of the South Carolina coastal plain, Report to the SC Dept. of Health and Environmental Control, Ground Water Protection Division, State of SC. 78 pp. Coates, G. R, and J. L. Dumanoir, 1973. A new approach to improve log derived permeability. SPWLA, Trancactions [4th Annual ‘Logging Symposium. p. 27 Jacob, CE. 1940, On the flow of water in an elastic artesian aquifer. ‘American Geophysical Union Transactions. part2, pp. ST4-S86, Jones, P. H. and H. E. Skibitszke, 1956, Subsurface geophysical ‘methods in groundwater hydrology. In: Landsburg, H. E., ed, Advances in Geophysics. Academic Press, Inc, New York. v3. Keys, W.S. 1989, Borehole Geophysies Applied to the Ground-Water Investigations. National Water Well Assoe., Dublin, OH. 313 Pr. Keys, W.S, and L, M. MacCary. 1971. Application of borehole geo- physics to water-resources investigations. U.S. Geological Sur- vey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations. bk. 2, 126 PP. Lohman, 8. W. 1972. Ground-water hydraulics. U.S. Geological Sur- ‘vey Professional Paper 708, 70 pp MacCary, L. M. 1984, Apparent water resistivity, porosity, and ‘ground-water temperature of the Madison Limestone and underiying rocks in parts of Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, ‘and Wyoming. US. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1273. D.l4pp. Morris, R. L. and W. P. Briggs. 1967. Using log-derived values of Water saturation and porosity. Transactions, SPWLA Logging Symposium, Park, A-D. 1980, The ground-water resources of Sumter and Florence counties, South Carolina. South Carolina Water Resources Commission, Report #113 Robson, $.G.and E. R. Banta. 1993. Data from core analyses, aquifer testing, and geophysical logging of Denver Basin bedrock aqui- fers a Castle Pines, Colorado, USGS Open Files Report. Schlumberger. 1989. Log Interpretations. Principles) Applications. ‘Schlumberger Educational Services, Inc., Houston, Spigner, B. C. and C. Ransom, Il, 1979. Report on ground-water ‘conditions in the low country area, South Carolina. South Carolina Water Resources Commission. Report #132. Thayer, P. A. 1983. Relationship of porosity and permeability to petrology of the Madison Limestone in rock cores form three {est wells in Montana and Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1273-C, Timur, A. 1968, An investigation of permeability, porosity, and resid ‘ual water saturation relationships. Transactions SPWLA 9th Logging Symposium, and The Log Anaiyst, 1968. v. 9, no. 4, p.8. Tixier, M. P1949, Evaluation of permeability from electric los resis ‘vty gradients. Oil and Gas Journal, June 16, pp. 113-122. Turean, A.N, 1966. Calelation of water quality from electrical logs— “Theory and practice. Louisiana Geological Survey and Louisiana Dept. of Public Works Resources Pamphiet 19. ‘Wyllie, M.R.J.,A. R. Gregory, and G.H.F, Gardner 1958, An expe ‘mental investigation of the factors affecting elastic wave veloc ties in porous media. Geophysics. v.23, pp. 459-493 331